> >  But, if you are trying to write code that is portable across Smalltalk
> >  dialects, you avoid brace notation.
>
> All dialects have a way to modify the parser don't they (probably a
> really simple way in many of them)?  Maybe an alternative would be to
> just make a package that adds the syntax to any Smalltalk.  Then
> people could use it if the want and just site the package as a
> dependancy.

I think modifying the parser is a pretty big expectation for an
application or framework.

>
> >  As I think it would be easier to update. I use literal forms to save
> >  myself typing but when I commit code, I'd rather have the long form.
> >  In fact, I've sent #sourceString to literal arrays so I could get the
> >  long form without all the typing.
>
> That is a good way of doing it, but the maintenance cost comes from
> how much code is there, not how much was typed.  This is a huge
> problem Java has.  Java wizards say "It doesn't matter how verbose the
> syntax is, I just generate all the boilerplate".  But that doesn't
> help the guy maintaining the code very much.
>

Wasn't my point. I think the long form is clearer. One of the great
things about Smalltalk is the simple object+message syntax. Brace
notation is something else. It can be handy at times, but I think the
other form is clearer.